Search for: "Phillips v. United States"
Results 481 - 500
of 1,104
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
[Eugene Volokh] New York’s ‘aggravated harassment’ statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague
13 May 2014, 1:08 pm
” Three federal judges have already found this statute unconstitutional (see Vives v the City of New York, 305 F Supp 2d 289, 299 [SD NY 2003, Scheindlin, J.], revd on other grounds 405 F3d 115 [2d Cir 2004] ["where speech is regulated or proscribed based on its content, the scope of the effected speech must be clearly defined"]; see also Vives 405 F3d 115, 123-124 [2d Cir 2004, Cardamone, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part] [Penal Law § 240.30(1)… [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 1:14 pm
He submitted that current interpretation of fair use, eg Cariou v Prince, is different from what fair use used to be, say, 20 years ago] should be imported into these laws - as well as different approaches that have arisen in the course of these processes. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 6:00 am
Phillips 66 Co., 2013 U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 9:28 am
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared each of Alice’s patents invalid for not defining patent-eligible subject matter. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 7:37 pm
Nakanishi, john a. powell, Maria Blanco, Howard Winant Indigenous Peoples: Response to the Periodic Report of the United States to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Tribal Self-Government in the United States John Dossett When Affirmative Action Was White Ira Katznelson The Importance of Targeted Universalism john a. powell, Stephen Menendian & Jason Reece Implicit Bias A Forum – eds. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 2:45 pm
On Monday, March 31, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments in the much-anticipated software battle between patentee Alice Corporation, the petitioner, and CLS Bank, the respondent who was victorious below thanks to an equally divided Federal Circuit. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 2:41 pm
The biggest problem with Alice’s case (presented by Carter Phillips) is its similarity to Bilski v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 1:38 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 12:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 10:53 am
Again, the strong reliance on those requirements is a bold move; the argument on this point closely resembles the argument that the United States presented in Mayo to no avail. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 5:06 am
United States, 66 A.3d 1013 (D.C. 2013) and Frye v. [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 5:12 pm
The court in United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 3:00 am
State of Louisiana v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 10:05 am
” United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 1:02 am
He also wrote the famous opinion for United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 11:48 am
As a result, the court relied heavily on an older California Supreme Court case, Miller v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:11 pm
Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:49 pm
” Id. at *10.View #2: Modify CyborThe second approach, favored by some amici curiae including the United States, may be viewed as a fusion or hybrid of de novo review and deferential review. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:18 am
Like he would be in the later Plessy v. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm
Perry v Truefitt, 49 ER 749 stated that ‘A man is not to sell his own goods under pretence that they are the goods of another man. [read post]
